27 July 2007

Norwegian royal nutjob shares her special gift

Considering that European royals were appointed by God almighty himself, it's hardly surprising that they get to chat to his door staff. A Norwegian princess claims she is psychic and can talk to angels.

"I have lately understood the value of this important gift and I wish to share it with other people, maybe with you."

Ah, gawd bless you ma'am.

A three-year programme at her centre costs 24,000 Norwegian crowns ($4,150; 3,000 euros; £2,000) per year.

You what!?

So it seems that not only do the angels talk to her, they advise her to set up a shabby business milking gullible new age royalist twats for 2 grand a year.

We're sure that once the angels finish the pressing business of helping Martha Louise fleece suckers, they get straight on sorting out wars, disease and famines.

For more information see
Norway princess 'talks to angels'

21 July 2007

Spanish royal cartoon banned

Freedom of speech has been under threat in many EU countries despite it being supposedly guaranteed under law. In many countries, 'holocaust denial' is a crime punishable by years in jail. Of course, the truth is perfectly capable of standing up for itself but it seems there are some things that countries with a guilty past just cannot face being discussed.

Now the Spanish have stepped up the assault on liberal democracy and free speech with a dictatorship-era act against the publisher of a political cartoon portraying a Spanish prince. It's ironic given that Europe proudly trumpeted its free speech credentials when cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed were published in Denmark.

So Europeans should beware. You can insult a major world religion with impunity, but if you dare insult a royal family in similar fashion or question the legally-mandated view of world history, a prison cell beckons.

For more information see
Spanish royal sex cartoon banned

17 May 2007

Harry excused from war zone

ThroneOut had predicted that Prince Harry would not see front line service from the moment it was announced. But it seems he won't even be sent to Iraq at all because "it's dangerous".

Of course it is. It's a war zone. Well over a hundred British troops have been killed already, and the soldiers face suicide bombings, snipers, IEDs and mortar attacks on a daily basis. The insurgents are already doing their best to kill or capture enemy troops, as the recent attack on a US patrol that resulted in the capture of 3 servicemen shows.

None of that deters our country's misguided leaders from throwing more cannon fodder into the unwinnable quagmire. But when it comes to the Queen's grandchild, they suddenly become much more concerned about the dangers.

So the question is, if a royal cannot be sent to a war zone because as a high-profile person he'd be a special target, what the hell is he doing in the army anyway? What was the use of wasting tax payers' money on training him to shoot guns, drive tanks and bark commands to flunkies when as soon as those skills are actually required he's pulled out because (shock!) the other side might shoot at him?

In the dim and very distant past, kings themselves would lead their armies onto the battlefield. Very often, one of them would not leave it. Those days are long gone. Sure they like the uniforms, and the medals and the parades and the posing. But it's just fancy dress, because at heart members of the royal family are pampered pansies. The closest Harry comes to combat is punching tabloid photographers, and only then if there are some beefy bouncers to make sure he doesn't get punched back.

So in few years time when Harry gets married to some useless money-grabbing tart, and wears his military uniform with a chest full of medals, you'll know for sure he got them for being the useless bastard son of a useless family, rather than for acts of bravery on the battlefield.

For more information see
Prince Harry not to serve in Iraq

25 March 2007

Harry accidentally falls into tabloid journalist

According to Buckingham Palace, a stone cold sober Prince Harry 'accidentally fell into a tabloid photographer' on his way home from a quiet night out in London last night. The spokesman said that the prince had enjoyed half a shandy early in the evening followed by one or two orange juices and a handful of bombay mix around 11pm.

While leaving the club after not feeling up a girl who was not his girlfriend, he spotted a tabloid photographer and greeted him with a cheerful "And what do you do?" before posing politely for some photographs. However, in the poor light he stumbled on an uneven paving stone before accidentally shouting "I'm going to fucking kill you" while inadvertently attempting to rip the man's head off.

Harry's pending posting to Iraq has caused controversy after it emerged he would have minders to make sure he didn't come to any harm. The British Army explained the decision, "Prince Harry has experienced a number of accidents outside nightclubs due to poor quality pavement surfacing. Iraq has some of the most uneven sidewalks in the world, and Prince Harry is obviously at greater risk than the other troops because he will have the added distraction of trying not to fall onto tabloid journalists as well as avoiding snipers' bullets, roadside bombs and suicide attacks.

The British Army has asked the media not to attempt to follow the prince or reveal which suite in the heavily-fortified Basra Ritz-Carlton he will be patrolling.

For more information see
News of the World - Prince Harry Orf his head
BBC News - Harry club fracas claims denied

02 March 2007

Diana inquest will have jury

Since Diana's death in 1997 there have been persistent conspiracy theories that her death was not an accident.

An inquest has still not been held nearly 10 years later.

When the coroner for her inquest was finally appointed she decided to hold the inquest without a jury - she alone would decide the verdict.

ThroneOut criticized this decision. Such an inquest would be seen by those who disbelieve the official version of events as a whitewash.

After legal action by Mohamed Fayed, this decision has now been overturned, and the inquest will proceed with a jury.

It unlikely that true conspiracy buffs will be convinced by anything, including the verdict of a jury of randomly selected people, but for most the selection of an unbiased jury of ordinary members of the public will give much more legitimacy to whatever decision is reached.

Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. A single coroner acting alone may well come to the right decision, but in the eyes of many it would be a verdict that means nothing.

One has to ask why this commonsense decision was not made initially. It will be interesting to see if there is any legal attempt to appeal it, and again leave the decision on this controversial event to a single "estblishment" figure.

For more information see
ThroneOut - Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict
BBC News - Diana inquest to be heard by jury

16 January 2007

Public cannot be trusted with Diana inquest verdict

Since Diana's death there have been widespread suspicions that she may have been murdered due to many unanswered questions about her death. These suspicions were later inflamed by the revelation that she had claimed that she would be killed in a car crash.

The authorities of course have always denied foul play.

Having seen the inquest delayed until nearly 10 years after her death, and with an attempt made to hold the inquest in private, those believing in a conspiracy always suggested that an unbiased inquest would never take place. Their suspicion was that the jury would be a fixed jury (by using the coroner's powers to appoint a jury of members of the royal household).

Instead the coroner, Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, has removed any reason for a bent jury - by deciding she alone will decide whether Diana was murdered by a government conspiracy. No jury required.

ThroneOut takes no position on whether Diana was murdered. Its entirely possible that her death was an accident, but then again many questions remain unanswered, and Diana herself claimed she would be murdered in a car crash.

But the move to exclude a jury will do absolutely nothing to dispel rumours of a conspiracy. Judges don't have a history of finding against "the establishment". Ask those who sat through Lord Hutton's investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, and were stunned when he reached a verdict quite different from that which everyone else who sat through the hearings had expected.

The inquest verdict is of course a done deal. It seems inconceivable that the decision to exclude a jury could be made in a case of such great public interest. Instead the inquest has been turned into monumental waste of public money which will do absolutely nothing to dispel any rumours about a conspiracy.

More info
BBC News - Diana inquest to sit with no jury